Over the past years, privacy and security policies, and related operations have become increasingly important. Breaches in security, leading to the unauthorized access of personal data (which may include sensitive personal data) have become more frequent among companies and other organizations of all sizes. Such personal data may include, but is not limited to, personally identifiable information (PII), which may be information that directly (or indirectly) identifies an individual or entity. Examples of PII include names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, and biometric identifiers such as a person's fingerprints or picture. Other personal data may include, for example, customers' Internet browsing habits, purchase history, or even their preferences (i.e., likes and dislikes, as provided or obtained through social media). While not all personal data may be sensitive, in the wrong hands, this kind of information may have a negative impact on the individuals or entities whose sensitive personal data is collected, including identity theft and embarrassment. Not only would this breach have the potential of exposing individuals to malicious wrongdoing, the fallout from such breaches may result in damage to reputation, potential liability, and costly remedial action for the organizations that collected the information and that were under an obligation to maintain its confidentiality and security. These breaches may result not only in financial loss, but loss of credibility, confidence, and trust from individuals, stakeholders, and the public.
Many organizations that obtain, use, and transfer personal data, including sensitive personal data, have begun to address these privacy and security issues. To manage personal data, many companies have attempted to implement operational policies and processes that comply with legal requirements, such as Mayada's Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) or the U.S.'s Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) protecting a patient's medical information. The European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may fine companies up to 4% of their global worldwide turnover (revenue) for not complying with its regulations (companies must comply by March 2018). These operational policies and processes also strive to comply with industry best practices (e.g., the Digital Advertising Alliance's Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising).
Many regulators recommend conducting privacy impact assessments, or data protection risk assessments along with data inventory mapping. For example, the GDPR requires data protection impact assessments. Additionally, the United Kingdom ICO's office provides guidance around privacy impact assessments. The OPC in Mayada recommends personal information inventory, and the Singapore PDPA specifically mentions personal data inventory mapping. Thus, developing operational policies and processes may reassure not only regulators, but also an organization's customers, vendors, and other business partners.
For many companies handling personal data, privacy audits, whether done according to AICPA Generally Accepted Privacy Principles, or ISACA's IT Standards, Guidelines, and Tools and Techniques for Audit Assurance and Control Professionals, are not just a best practice, they are a requirement (for example, Facebook and Google will be required to perform 10 privacy audits each until 2032 to ensure that their treatment of personal data comports with the expectations of the Federal Trade Commission). When the time comes to perform a privacy audit, be it a compliance audit or adequacy audit, the lack of transparency or clarity into where personal data comes from, where it is stored, who is using it, where it has been transferred, and for what purpose is it being used, may bog down any privacy audit process. Even worse, after a breach occurs and is discovered, many organizations are unable to even identify a clear-cut organizational owner responsible for the breach recovery, or provide sufficient evidence that privacy policies and regulations were complied with.
Many of these breaches have their roots in vulnerabilities that may be found in software applications, websites, or other computer code that collect, use and process personal data. The computer code may be an in-house application or solution, or one provided by a third party. When an organization's auditors or privacy team members conduct a privacy audit or assessment, they typically direct questions to software developers in an attempt to obtain answers they need to address compliance with privacy standards. Unfortunately, the auditors and developers do not always use the same vernacular or technical language. As an example, auditors might ask a developer, “List for me all the personal data that you collect,” or “are you using any third party code?” A developer, when responding, might, for example, not understand that a user's IP address is considered personal data, especially according to some laws. A developer might also not understand that third party code includes, for example, including snippets of HTML for a hosted library from Google's hosted library, or the use of other software development kits (SDKs). With multitudes of questions during the audit process, the disconnect or language barrier may lead to vulnerabilities. Thus, auditors may ask a multitude of questions, but the disconnect from the language barrier might not lead to the identification or resolution of many privacy-related issues because the auditors are not obtaining the right answers to those questions.
In light of the above, there is currently a need for improved systems and methods for assessing mobile applications, websites, and other computer code for features and conditions that may have an impact on a company's compliance with privacy standards.